Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

M. Pierre a d¨¦pos¨¦ un appel. Unat n'a trouv¨¦ aucune erreur dans la conclusion du Tribunal des diff¨¦rends selon laquelle la demande n'¨¦tait pas ¨¤ recevoir. La d¨¦cision contest¨¦e n¡¯a pas eu de cons¨¦quences juridiques affectant n¨¦gativement les termes et conditions de la nomination de M. Pierre et, par cons¨¦quent, il n¡¯y avait pas de d¨¦cision administrative en appel. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ¨¦tait convaincu que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT a correctement soutenu que, puisque M. Pierre n'avait aucune esp¨¦rance de renouvellement de sa nomination ¨¤ terme, les renouvellements ¨¤ court terme ¨¦taient consid¨¦r¨¦s comme prima facie en sa faveur. L...

Mr. Pierre filed an appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Dispute Tribunal's conclusion that the application was not receivable. The contested decision did not have legal consequences adversely affecting the terms and conditions of Mr. Pierre¡¯s appointment and therefore, there was no appealable administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that since Mr. Pierre had no expectancy of renewal of his fixed-term appointment, the short-term renewals were considered prima facie in his favour. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that Mr. Pierre had not provided sufficient evidence that the...

En ce qui concerne la demande d'une audience orale, l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT avait l¨¦galement exerc¨¦ son pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire et avait donn¨¦ une explication raisonnable pour ne pas tenir une audience orale. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT a d¨¦termin¨¦ correctement que les preuves documentaires compl¨¨tes avant qu'elle ne soit suffisante pour rendre une d¨¦cision sans avoir besoin d'une audience orale, d'autant plus que la question ¨¦tait de recevoir. De plus, les appelants n'ont pas montr¨¦ comment le refus de la demande de d¨¦tenir une audience orale a affect¨¦ le jugement. En ce qui concerne la question de la...

As regards the request for an oral hearing, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had lawfully exercised its discretion and given a reasonable explanation for not holding an oral hearing. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly determined that the comprehensive documentary evidence before it was sufficient to render a decision without the need for an oral hearing, especially as the issue was one of receivability. Further, the appellants have not shown how the denial of the request to hold an oral hearing affected the Judgment. With respect to the issue of receivability, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and upheld...

L'AAA a fait appel et le secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral est interrompu. Les non-¨¦tat n'¨¦taient pas d'accord avec la position de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT selon laquelle AAA ne pouvait pas ¨ºtre tenu de signaler une all¨¦gation de viol "qu'il a entendu d'une autre personne qui a assist¨¦ ¨¤ la cour" et que l'article 4.1 de ST / AI / 2017/1 "ne s'applique pas ¨¤ une personne qui simplement Entend une seconde main sur un cas d'inconduite, car une grande partie de ce qu'une telle personne a ¨¤ signaler serait le ou?-dire et peut-¨ºtre trompeur et d¨¦pourvue du type de d¨¦tail que la r¨¨gle cherche ¨¤ susciter du membre du personnel ?...

AAA appealed and the Secretary-General cross-appealed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s position that AAA could not be required to report a rape allegation ¡°which he heard from another person who attended court¡± and that Section 4.1 of ST/AI/2017/1 ¡°does not apply to an individual who merely hears second-hand about a case of misconduct since much of what such a person has to report would be hearsay and possibly misleading and devoid of the kind of detail the rule is seeking to elicit from the staff member¡±. This approach erroneously imposes a requirement that the staff member must have a...

Unat a jug¨¦ que l'appelant a simplement r¨¦p¨¦t¨¦ les arguments soulev¨¦s devant undt concernant la preuve. Unat a accept¨¦ la conclusion de Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵD selon laquelle il y avait des preuves claires et convaincantes pour ¨¦tablir les faits sous-jacents aux all¨¦gations d'inconduite. Unat a jug¨¦ que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT a appliqu¨¦ la norme juridique appropri¨¦e, ¨¤ savoir des preuves claires et convaincantes. Unat a jug¨¦ que Undt a entendu la preuve du plaignant, d'autres t¨¦moins mat¨¦riels, a ¨¦valu¨¦ la cr¨¦dibilit¨¦ et la fiabilit¨¦ du t¨¦moignage sous serment devant lui, a d¨¦termin¨¦ les faits probables et a ensuite rendu une...

Mr. Beda appealed. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Beda's motion seeking leave to file a rejoinder on grounds that there was no probative value to the rejoinder Mr. Beda sought to file, and there was nothing new in the Administration's answer that would require him to have an opportunity to provide a rebuttal or rejoinder. Turning to the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had applied the correct legal standard in its Judgment - whether the facts had been established by clear and convincing evidence - and properly assessed the evidence and credibility of witness testimony, making the...

Unat a jug¨¦ que l'appelant a simplement r¨¦p¨¦t¨¦ les arguments soulev¨¦s devant undt concernant la preuve. Unat a accept¨¦ la conclusion de Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵD selon laquelle il y avait des preuves claires et convaincantes pour ¨¦tablir les faits sous-jacents aux all¨¦gations d'inconduite. Unat a jug¨¦ que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT a appliqu¨¦ la norme juridique appropri¨¦e, ¨¤ savoir des preuves claires et convaincantes. Unat a jug¨¦ que Undt a entendu la preuve du plaignant, d'autres t¨¦moins mat¨¦riels, a ¨¦valu¨¦ la cr¨¦dibilit¨¦ et la fiabilit¨¦ du t¨¦moignage sous serment devant lui, a d¨¦termin¨¦ les faits probables et a ensuite rendu une...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant merely repeated arguments raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT regarding the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accepted Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that there was clear and convincing evidence to establish the facts underlying the allegations of misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT applied the appropriate legal standard, namely clear and convincing evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT heard the evidence of the complainant, other material witnesses, assessed the credibility and reliability of the testimony under oath before it, determined the probable facts and then rendered a decision as to whether the onus to establish the...

Demande d'audience orale: Compte tenu des arguments de M. Toson dans lesquels il souhaite contester les preuves devant le Tribunal des diff¨¦rends d'une mani¨¨re qui serait essentiellement une r¨¦p¨¦tition de la preuve, Unat a jug¨¦ qu'une audience orale ne devrait pas ¨ºtre accord¨¦e et ne contribuerait pas ¨¤ rapidement et R¨¦solvant assez les probl¨¨mes dans le pr¨¦sent appel. Sur le fond, Unat a jug¨¦ que le Tribunal des litiges appliquait la norme de r¨¦vision appropri¨¦e. Il a examin¨¦ la politique applicable de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA pour les processus de s¨¦lection (le PPM), a examin¨¦ les preuves et a d¨¦termin¨¦ que...

Request for oral hearing: Given Mr. Toson¡¯s arguments wherein he wishes to contest evidence before the Dispute Tribunal in a manner that would be essentially a rehearing of the evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an oral hearing should not be granted and would not assist in expeditiously and fairly resolving the issues in this appeal. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Dispute Tribunal applied the appropriate standard of review. It reviewed the applicable policy of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA for selection processes (the PPM), reviewed the evidence, and determined that the applicable procedures were followed in the...

Unat a consid¨¦r¨¦ un appel de Mme Al Smadi. Unat a constat¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT a commis une erreur dans sa conclusion qu'une lettre que Mme Al Smadi a re?ue ¨¤ sa demande de reclassification le 17 ao?t 2017 ¨¦tait une d¨¦cision administrative. La seule interpr¨¦tation de cette lettre ¨¦tait que ce n¡¯¨¦tait pas une d¨¦cision qui avait un effet juridique ou des cons¨¦quences sur les termes et conditions de nomination de Mme Al Smadi. C¡¯¨¦tait simplement une notification que la demande de reclassement de Mme Al Smadi ¨¦tait toujours en cours d¡¯examen, mais que l¡¯examen n¡¯avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ ?finalis¨¦? ou d¨¦cid¨¦ ¨¤...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms. Al Smadi. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in its finding that a letter Ms. Al Smadi received to her reclassification request on 17 August 2017 was an administrative decision. The only interpretation of this letter was that it was not a decision that had any legal effect or consequences on Ms. Al Smadi¡¯s terms and conditions of appointment. It was simply a notification that Ms. Al Smadi¡¯s reclassification request was still being reviewed but that the review had not been ¡°finalized¡± or decided upon as of that date. The letter she received on 29 July 2019 was, on...

Unat a consid¨¦r¨¦ une demande de r¨¦vision du jugement n ¡ã 2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1106. En ce qui concerne l'article 11 du statut de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, Unat a jug¨¦ qu'il n'¨¦tait pas satisfait que les d¨¦clarations de revenus vierges telles que pr¨¦vues par M. Giles ¨¦taient inconnues de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT et de la partie qui demande la r¨¦vision au moment o¨´ le jugement pertinent a ¨¦t¨¦ rendu ni que les d¨¦clarations de revenus vierges ¨¦taient un fait d¨¦cisif. Unat a jug¨¦ que le demandeur r¨¦it¨¦rait les arguments qu'il avait avanc¨¦s, ce qui n'¨¦tait ni l'objectif ni l'intention d'une demande de r¨¦vision du jugement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ la...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1106. With reference to Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was neither satisfied that the blank tax returns as provided by Mr. Giles¡¯ were unknown to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and to the party applying for the revision at the time the relevant Judgment was rendered nor that the blank tax returns were a decisive fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Applicant reiterated arguments he had made previously, which was not the purpose nor intention of an application for revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Unat d¨¦tenait l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait raison de trouver la demande Ratione materiae non receivable. Au moment du jugement de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵD, il n'y avait aucune d¨¦cision administrative finale qui avait des cons¨¦quences juridiques directes sur les conditions d'emploi de l'appelant. En outre, pendant l'intervalle, l'appelant a ¨¦t¨¦ s¨¦lectionn¨¦ pour le poste, et par cons¨¦quent, il a re?u ce qu'il avait cherch¨¦ ¨¤ l'origine, faisant sa demande d'annulation de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e. En ce qui concerne la demande d'indemnisation pour le diff¨¦rentiel salarial pendant 17 mois, le tribunal a conclu qu'il n'y avait pas de...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to find the application non-receivable ratione materiae. At the time of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment, there was no final administrative decision that had direct legal consequences on the Appellant¡¯s terms of employment. In addition, in the intervening time, the Appellant has been selected for the post, and therefore, he has received that which he had sought originally, making his request for rescission of the contested decision moot. Regarding the request for compensation for the pay differential for 17 months, the Tribunal found because there was no appealable...

Le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral a d¨¦pos¨¦ un appel. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a accord¨¦ l'appel et annul¨¦ le jugement de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵD. Unat a jug¨¦ que si la d¨¦termination de quels membres du personnel doit ¨ºtre compar¨¦s est ?principalement guid¨¦ par le titre fonctionnel conform¨¦ment ¨¤ la lettre de nomination du membre du personnel?, il peut y avoir des cas o¨´ le titre fonctionnel ne refl¨¨te pas les fonctions r¨¦elles remplies comme dans le pr¨¦sent Cas. Dans ces circonstances, le CHRO doit d¨¦terminer quel individu appartient ¨¤ quel groupe professionnel. Le r?le et les fonctions de Mme Barud ont chang¨¦ en mai 2018 pour un assistant de...

The Secretary-General filed an appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while the determination of which staff members should be compared is ¡°primarily guided by the functional title as per the staff member¡¯s letter of appointment¡±, there can be cases where the functional title does not reflect the actual functions performed as in the present case. In these circumstances, the CHRO must determine which individual falls into which occupational group. Ms. Barud¡¯s role and functions changed in May 2018 to a Facilities Management Assistant. Therefore, at the...